biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 13:39:26 GMT -5
I personally think that putting money over teaching kids right and wrong is greedy. It's just my moral code. Other people see it different and I don't have an issue with that. I won't tell folks they are wrong if they would have kept the money if they respect my belief that the guy did the right thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 13:42:38 GMT -5
Lets see, putting decent parenting over personal greed. This implies that had they taken the money it would have been cheating someone else out of their fair shot. That's not the case. Even if the other twin had been around (and he made the shot)...the money would have still gone to the same family, and have been put towards the same purposes. What exactly was there to teach? "Don't sub for your brother when he's been given an opportunity that would benefit both of you?" I'm not gonna call the guy stupid cause everybody's got their reasons for SOMETHING, but there's no moral high ground to take here.
|
|
|
Post by Zabel Zarock on Aug 17, 2011 13:43:39 GMT -5
Lets see, putting decent parenting over personal greed. Not saying *I* could do it, but I respect this man for it. Theirs no honesty here, just pure retardation. So many other smart things he could have done with it. And real talk, anyone saying they'd give the money back is lieing to themselves. Also big ups to the kids, that was some smart shit.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 13:53:11 GMT -5
Lets see, putting decent parenting over personal greed. Not saying *I* could do it, but I respect this man for it. Theirs no honesty here, just pure retardation. So many other smart things he could have done with it. And real talk, anyone saying they'd give the money back is lieing to themselves. Also big ups to the kids, that was some smart s***. Real talk, you don't know what everyone else in the world honestly would do in the situation. Personally, I'd have a big issue with the kids lying about which one was which. I don't know what I would have done in the dads shoes. Again, I'm not putting down the folks who would have taken the money. But to paint this man as some idiot is f***ed up to me. He felt he did what was right according to his moral code. As long as he isn't forcing that code on you it's no one elses business really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 13:58:18 GMT -5
Theirs no honesty here, just pure retardation. So many other smart things he could have done with it. And real talk, anyone saying they'd give the money back is lieing to themselves. Also big ups to the kids, that was some smart s***. Real talk, you don't know what everyone else in the world honestly would do in the situation. Personally, I'd have a big issue with the kids lying about which one was which. I don't know what I would have done in the dads shoes. Again, I'm not putting down the folks who would have taken the money. But to paint this man as some idiot is f***ed up to me. He felt he did what was right according to his moral code. As long as he isn't forcing that code on you it's no one elses business really. Again, what was so moral about it? The money would have gone to the same family (as long as the other kid knew his way around a stick). No one would've suffered for it. And that's not twisting the truth to suit your needs...THAT'S JUST FACTS! I can get there being some anxiety that it was the other twin that took the shot, but would anybody REALLY consider that to be a big deal in the long run? The most I could see is if they KNEW the other kid couldn't shoot and would've screwed up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 13:59:15 GMT -5
I really wouldn't be surprised if they still got the 50K and maybe even more out of all this somehow.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 14:00:44 GMT -5
Real talk, you don't know what everyone else in the world honestly would do in the situation. Personally, I'd have a big issue with the kids lying about which one was which. I don't know what I would have done in the dads shoes. Again, I'm not putting down the folks who would have taken the money. But to paint this man as some idiot is f***ed up to me. He felt he did what was right according to his moral code. As long as he isn't forcing that code on you it's no one elses business really. Again, what was so moral about it? The money would have gone to the same family (as long as the other kid knew his way around a stick). I can get there being some anxiety that it was the other twin that took the shot, but would anybody REALLY consider that to be a big deal in the long run? The most I could see is if they KNEW the other kid couldn't shoot and would've screwed up Tricking someone and being dishonest for financial gain is immoral to me. It may not be for others. I'm fine to live and let live.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 14:02:39 GMT -5
Honestly, I would have likely told the folks the situation, and hoped to hell we'd get the money anyway. Probably what this man hopes too and hopefully he is right.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Aug 17, 2011 14:05:26 GMT -5
Like others said, he could've given it to charity at the very least.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 14:09:26 GMT -5
Again, what was so moral about it? The money would have gone to the same family (as long as the other kid knew his way around a stick). I can get there being some anxiety that it was the other twin that took the shot, but would anybody REALLY consider that to be a big deal in the long run? The most I could see is if they KNEW the other kid couldn't shoot and would've screwed up Tricking someone and being dishonest for financial gain is immoral to me. It may not be for others. I'm fine to live and let live. I keep asking you what would have been dishonest about them taking the money. At worst the kid "subbed" for his brother, who was not available. The money would have gone to the same cause either way. In fact I bet you if they had said at the top that, "This is his twin brother" and provided proof, they would've let him take the shot anyway. I doubt it would've been serious to them like that So who was being screwed?
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,717
|
Post by Glitch on Aug 17, 2011 14:14:43 GMT -5
If these kids hold a horrible grudge against their dad for decades, I don't blame them.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 14:15:00 GMT -5
Tricking someone and being dishonest for financial gain is immoral to me. It may not be for others. I'm fine to live and let live. I keep asking you what would have been dishonest about them taking the money. At worst the kid "subbed" for his brother, who was not available. The money would have gone to the same cause either way. In fact I bet you if they had said at the top that, "This is his twin brother" and provided proof, they would've let him take the shot anyway. I doubt it would've been serious to them like that So who was being screwed? Another person pretending to be the person eligible to win the money is dishonest to me. I don't see why anyone cares what I would or wouldn't do in the situation or what I consider moral and not unless I'm acting like my opinion makes me superior, which I'm not. I'm not looking to change anyones mind, but I highly doubt a moral code I've built over three decades is going to be altered either.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 14:16:53 GMT -5
Tricking someone and being dishonest for financial gain is immoral to me. It may not be for others. I'm fine to live and let live. I keep asking you what would have been dishonest about them taking the money. At worst the kid "subbed" for his brother, who was not available. The money would have gone to the same cause either way. In fact I bet you if they had said at the top that, "This is his twin brother" and provided proof, they would've let him take the shot anyway. I doubt it would've been serious to them like that So who was being screwed? Nate Smith pretended to be his twin brother Nick Smith. How do you not see that as being dishonest? And don't give me this "subbed for his brother nonsense", because when it is my turn, I want Sidney Crosby to sub for me.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 14:19:24 GMT -5
If these kids hold a horrible grudge against their dad for decades, I don't blame them. Ok, so is the $50,000 check made out to Nick or Nate?
|
|
JDviant
Unicron
XB1 username: lil giant robot
Posts: 3,103
|
Post by JDviant on Aug 17, 2011 14:21:42 GMT -5
And real talk, anyone saying they'd give the money back is lieing to themselves. This...apart from the fact that apparently there are people doing this, since its what the article is about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 14:21:49 GMT -5
And don't give me this "subbed for his brother nonsense", because when it is my turn, I want Sidney Crosby to sub for me. Calling it subbing for his bro is certainly not nonsense comparing it to switching a pro hockey player in though? THAT'S going overboard. I'm 100% sure that if they had told them, and proven, right off the bat "This is his his twin brother--can he take the shot?", there would have been no problems with it. The check would have gone to the same family either way. There isn't a single thing dishonest about it except that the boy who should've taken the shot WASN'T THERE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 14:26:38 GMT -5
I can appreciate where the guy is coming from, but to be honest - here's how the scenario will play out.
Pat Smith: "Hello insurance company? Yeah, it was my son Nate who took the shot and won the money, not Nick. They're twins and Nick went home early so we let Nate take the shot in his place."
Insurance Company: "Uh okay...., so do you want another $50K or something?"
Pat Smith: "No, no - I just wanted to be honest about it."
Insurance Company: "Well, okay - thanks I guess. So how's your life insurance these days Mr. Smith?"
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 14:27:07 GMT -5
And don't give me this "subbed for his brother nonsense", because when it is my turn, I want Sidney Crosby to sub for me. I'm 100% sure that if they had told them, and proven, right off the bat "This is his his twin brother--can he take the shot?", there would have been no problems with it. Then that is what they should have done. The fact that they didn't tells me they at least entertained the possibility that doing so would have cost them the money. And honestly, the only thing in this entire thread that pisses me off is people acting like they know what other people do. it's arrogant, insulting and total bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 14:28:22 GMT -5
And don't give me this "subbed for his brother nonsense", because when it is my turn, I want Sidney Crosby to sub for me. Calling it subbing for his bro is certainly not nonsense comparing it to switching a pro hockey player in though? THAT'S going overboard. I'm 100% sure that if they had told them, and proven, right off the bat "This is his his twin brother--can he take the shot?", there would have been no problems with it. The check would have gone to the same family either way. There isn't a single thing dishonest about it except that the boy who should've taken the shot WASN'T THERE. Oh really?! Why is it ok for a twin brother to sub to take the shot, but not someone else? The check would have been made out to Nick, even though Nate made the shot. Explain to me why Nick should get one cent, when all he did was not be there. The 50,000 should go all to Nate, since he made the shot. Explain to me why the dad is an idiot for giving away $50,000, yet at the same time people assume that Nate should split the $50,000 with his brother, effectively giving away $25,000.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 17, 2011 14:33:00 GMT -5
I disagree that there was nothing dishonest in it. They brought one kid up and said it was a different kid. It doesn't matter if he was identical (identical kids can have different skill sets, after all), it was inherently dishonest. The company might have been fine with the other brother taking the shot, but they didn't ask so there's no way of knowing.
That said, even if I was teaching kids to do the right thing, I still think there are a lot of people who could have used the money more than the insurance company.
|
|